Pacific Banking Corporation V. Clave.docx

Pacific Banking Corporation v. Clave Union Funds — Payment of Atty.’s Fees | 7 March 1984 | J. Aquino Nature of Case: Certiorari Digest maker: Africa SUMMARY: Atty. Saavedra filed notice of attorney’s lien claiming that exerted efforts in expediting the decision which ordered petitioner and PABECO to execute a CBA. OP issued resolution which ordered petitioner to pay 345k to Saavedra. SC held that resolution is void as the money belongs to the employees (union members) and not to the union funds. DOCTRINE: Under Art. 222, attorney’s fees arising from collective bargaining resolutions shall not be imposed on any individual member of the union. However, said fees may be charged against the union funds.

FACTS: 1. In 1979, negotiations between Pacific Banking Corporation and PABECO (employees organisation) for collective bargaining agreement ensued. Deputy Minister of Labor then rendered a decision directing the parties to execute a CBA. 2. During the negotiations, Atty. Saavedra participated during the following times: filing of motion for reconsideration on July 15, a supplemental option on July 27, and a memorandum during the appeal to the Office of the President (OP). Before the formalisation of the CBA, Saavedra filed his notice of attorney's lien. 3. OP issued 4 resolutions, the last of which ordered the bank to pay Php345,000 for the said atty.’s fees. 4. Pacific Banking Corporation assailed this resolution by means of certiorari, praying that resolutions be declared void that the amount of Php345,000 be paid directly to the employees or union members. ISSUE/S & RATIO: 1. WON the 4th resolution is valid. — NO

- The Office of the President had no jurisdiction to make an adjudication on Saavedra's attorney's fees. Although the fees were a mere incident, nevertheless, the jurisdiction to fix the same and to order the payment thereof was outside OP’s appellate jurisdiction.

- More importantly, Art. 222 provides that atty.’s fees may be charged against the union funds in an amount agreed upon by the parties.

- In this case, the amount of Php345,000 does not constitute union funds, but rather the money of the employees. The union, not the employees, is obligated to Saavedra. RULING: Petition GRANTED.

NOTE: ART. 222. Appearances and Fees. - x x x. (b) No attorney's fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising from any collective bargaining negotiations or conclusion of the collective agreement shall be imposed on any individual member of the contracting union. Provided, however, that attorney's fees may be charged against union funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. Any contract, agreement or arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall be null and void.